David J LynchDavid Lerman: Mideast Allies Ask 'What’s Going On?' as U.S. Sells Iran Accord
Any doubt that U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has a tough job selling the Iran nuclear deal to Mideast allies was probably erased by an exasperated question from Jordan’s top military officer.
“Sometimes it’s difficult for us to know what the U.S. strategy is,” General Mashal al-Zaben told Carter in remarks overheard by reporters during a photo opportunity Wednesday evening in Amman. “What’s going on?”
Carter is traveling through the Middle East this week trying to demonstrate the U.S. commitment to traditional allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. His tour, however, only underscores the depth of discontent over an accord that is upending an already tumultuous region.
WNU Editor: America's allies in the Middle East have a very good idea on what the U.S. is doing .... that is why we are now seeing a major realignment of the political and military alliances that have dominated this region for the past 70 years. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are looking for other allies, and have already made approaches to Russia as well as establishing military and defense procurement arrangements with European nations. In the wars and conflicts that are now spreading throughout the region, the U.S. has been relegated to a secondary role .... and is being viewed as unreliable and/or too slow. And then there is Israel .... who clearly feel left out and not listened to by the President Obama. I expect this trend to accelerate, and even if U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and U.S. Secretary of State Kerry travel to the Middle East each month .... it is not going to change what is essentially becoming a different Middle East that is more violent, more sectarian, and definitely not unconditionally pro-American.
2 comments:
"...made approaches to Russia." Russia is a key ally of Iran and one of the key members of the P5+1 arrangement. As such, what good is that going to do them?
"...military and defense procurement arrangements with European nations." These nations would probably always be willing to sell something to the Arab states. As for any serious help beyond that, I fail to see what this is going to accomplish either. These European nations, if we mean Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, these nations are also key members of the P5+1. As such, I'd expect no real help there beyond perhaps weapons sales.
"Unconditionally pro-American..." The Middle East never has been. While it will use the Americans for its ends, it has always viewed America somewhere between a staunch ally and an enemy closer to an enemy. If American leaders have finally begun to wake up to this fact, this could be a silver lining.
As for the deal itself, I don't like it. When so many traditional "allies" such as the Gulf Arab states whom we've depended on and, at present, still need are screaming STOP, it might be a good idea to not charge forward. There could be something to this.
While I've never been under the delusion that America could get a good "deal" at the negotiating table, I can understand why America's leaders undertook this option. Not to pursue negotiations would mean an immediate and unconditional lifting of all sanctions and weapons embargoes against Iran, no inspections of any type, anywhere, at any time, and no possibility of ever reinstating any of this.
What concerns me is so many of our traditional "allies" are screaming STOP and there seems to be no backup plan for a scenario where the deal is unenforceable or otherwise does not work to curtail Iran. In other words, "all the eggs seem to be in one basket" and this basket seems rather flimsy!!
I've never really been under the delusion that Iran could be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, the sanctions could be kept in place, or weapons embargoes could be kept in place. As such, the position probably should be while trying to ensure Iran adheres to this and does not try and harm America have plans in place for the deal failing, Iran having nuclear weapons, all sanctions being lifted either in form or de facto, and unencumbered by weapons embargoes.
This type of prudent planning seems to be missing. Frankly the Administration seems to arrogant and has WAY to much faith in its abilities to pull off, is placing WAY to much in Iran's allies of Russia and China to assist us here, WAY to much faith in other friends of Iran such as the UK and France to assist us in implanting the deal, and in general seems utterly clueless.
The Republicans are NOT helpful when people like Lindsay Graham say to roughly paraphrase "the choice is not between this deal or no deal but this deal and a better deal." Uh Mr. Graham you were never going to get a better deal you delusional old fool. Frankly I'm surprised Iran agreed to what they did. Everyone in the negotiating room with the possible exception of America is their friends and supports Iran against America on this!!
Perhaps it would have been better not to waste time with negotiations that had such a slim chance any way and instead focus on the reality of a nuclear armed Iran with all impediments removed in substance and form and develop strategies on how to deal with the issue.
This is Jordan's top military officer? Is he really this dumb? If he wants to know what's going on, he needs to consult with the UN delegation for his country. As a current member of the UN Security Council, his country just voted yes to the Iranian nuclear agreement.
When faced with only limited support and often downright hostility from Sunni Arab governments, populations who are virulently anti-American, and are in general unreliable, and face a real prospect of being overthrown either by ISIS or other forces within the short to mid term, it's no wonder the US might want to pursue a policy that is not so heavily dependent upon such people. As such, I can explain to Jordan's top military officer exactly "what's going on." By asking this question this man either reveals he is very, very stupid, he is trying to humiliate the Americans, or something in between.
Jordan could have very easily voted "no" on this. The resolution still passes 14-1 and gets implemented. The Jordanians either could have done this on 1.)principle or 2.)to irritate the Americans. In such a lopsided vote, it would have cost Jordan's delegation nothing to vote against the resolution and might have even had some benefits. As such, if this man really is that stupid, someone needs to explain that it would make far more sense to ask the UN delegation for his country than to ask an American official.
While I can explain what's going on, I'm skeptical that the policies charted by us are good ones. For example, this has thus far done nothing to improve our relations with any of the other P5-1 members or Iran. In order to make this work, we are going to need the cooperation of other P5+1 members. As long as Russia and China the world's most powerful countries remain hostile to us this would seem problematic at best and it risks alienating traditional even if enigmatic and often unreliable partners.
Perhaps Saudi Arabia should have insisted on a spot at the negotiating table and we could have had the P6+1 and we might have been able to get a better "deal." Unlike some I was never under any delusion that the current make up of the P5+1 could ever result in what some might call a "good deal" for America.
Post a Comment